Sri Ranjeet Kumar Poddar vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Ranjeet Kumar Poddar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (Superintendent of Taxes) Guwahati-B-5. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 22.06.2023, alleging that he did not conduct any business from the declared place of business, as per Rule 21(a). However, the impugned order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration on the ground of Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, stating that the petitioner failed to furnish returns for the prescribed periods. The petitioner contended that the cancellation order was based on grounds different from those stated in the show cause notice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 28.03.2024, by which the petitioner's registration was cancelled, is illegal, arbitrary, and violates the principles of natural justice. The Court reasoned that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner alleged non-compliance with Rule 21(a) (not conducting business from the declared place of business). However, the cancellation order was passed on the ground of Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 (failure to furnish returns for prescribed periods). Since the cancellation was based on a ground different from that stated in the show cause notice, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself against the actual reason for cancellation. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and quashed. The Court clarified that this order does not prevent the respondent authorities from taking appropriate steps for cancellation by issuing a proper show cause notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice, given that the grounds for cancellation in the impugned order differed from the grounds stated in the show cause notice? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Rule 21(a)). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was vitiated because the authority cancelled the registration on grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice. This, according to the petitioner, violates the fundamental principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard on the charges actually leveled. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records that the Standing Counsel for the Finance and Taxation Department, Government of Assam, appeared. However, no specific arguments made by the revenue are recorded in the judgment.